Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28966892›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2017

Bacterial community associated with worker honeybees (

Tomas Erban, Ondrej Ledvinka, Martin Kamler, Bronislava Hortova, Marta Nesvorna, Jan Tyl, Dalibor Titera, Martin Markovic, Jan Hubert

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tomas ErbanCrop Research Institute, Prague, Czechia.
Ondrej LedvinkaCrop Research Institute, Prague, Czechia.
Martin KamlerBee Research Institute at Dol, Libcice nad Vltavou, Czechia.
Bronislava HortovaCrop Research Institute, Prague, Czechia.
Marta NesvornaCrop Research Institute, Prague, Czechia.
Jan TylBee Research Institute at Dol, Libcice nad Vltavou, Czechia.
Dalibor TiteraBee Research Institute at Dol, Libcice nad Vltavou, Czechia.
Martin MarkovicCrop Research Institute, Prague, Czechia.
Jan HubertCrop Research Institute, Prague, Czechia.
Crop Research Institute · CZBee Research Institute · CZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background

methodsThe study included worker bees collected from brood combs of colonies (i) with no signs of EFB (EFB0), (ii) without clinical symptoms but located at an apiary showing clinical signs of EFB (EFB1), and (iii) with clinical symptoms of EFB (EFB2). In total, 49 samples from 27 honeybee colonies were included in the dataset evaluated in this study. Each biological sample consisted of 10 surface-sterilized worker bees processed for DNA extraction. All subjects were analyzed using conventional PCR and by metabarcoding analysis based on the 16S rRNA gene V1-V3 region, as performed through Illumina MiSeq amplicon sequencing.

resultsThe bees from EFB2 colonies with clinical symptoms exhibited a 75-fold-higher incidence of

conclusionsHigh-throughput Illumina sequencing permitted a semi-quantitative analysis of the presence of

Indexed as

Bartonella apisEnterococcus faecalisFrischella perraraFructobacillus fructosusGilliamella apicolaLactobacillusMelissococcus plutoniusMicrobiomePathogen detectionSnodgrassella alvi

Identifiers

PMID28966892
PMCPMC5619233
OpenAlexW2759919368

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.